[e2e] Internet Packet Loss Measurements?

[Jasleen Kaur]

Roman and Christian,

The tool I mentioned earlier (full citation provided below) is similar 
in objective to the paper you mention below. It, however, incorporates 
substantially more details --- it partially emulates the sender-side TCP 
state-machine for 5 prominent TCP stacks (and we show that it is crucial 
to incorporate the details and stack diversity). The level-of-detail of 
our analysis enables us to identify and classify segment retransmissions 
with more accuracy and granularity than past work.

S. Rewaskar, J. Kaur, and F.D. Smith, "A Passive State-Machine Approach 
for Accurate Analysis of TCP Out-of-Sequence Segments", in ACM Computer 
Communications Review, July 2006.
 http://www.cs.unc.edu/~jasleen/papers/ccr06.pdf

Hope you find the tool useful. We would appreciate any feedback.

Thanks,
Jasleen




Roman Chertov wrote:

> Christian Vogt wrote:
>
>> Hello e2e folks,
>>
>> does anyone know about recent measurements on end-to-end packet loss in
>> the Internet?
>
>
> I came across this paper the other day which you might find useful.
>
> M. Allman, W. Eddy, S. Ostermann. Estimating Loss Rates With TCP. ACM 
> Performance Evaluation Review, 31(3), December 2003.
> This paper introduces mechanisms for estimating the real loss rate of 
> packets at the TCP sender with TCP Reno and with SACK option. Simply 
> counting the number of retransmissions often gives wrong results 
> because TCP senders do spurious retransmissions for various reasons. 
> The paper identifies some of the reasons for unnecessary retransmissions.
>
> Roman
>
>>
>> After some more or less unsuccessful searching, I'm wondering whether
>> there is anything more current than, e.g., Vern Paxson's Ph.D. thesis.
>> This thesis covers Internet packet loss quite extensively, but it dates
>> back to 1997 (the measurements are actually from 1994/1995) and the
>> Internet has evolved since then.  More recent work is kind of sparse...
>>
>> If someone could provide a pointer, I'd really appreciate that.
>>
>> Thanks a lot,
>> - Christian
>>
>